search

langsci / 163

A lexicalist account of argument structure
1 stars 0 forks source link

A lot of agreement, but... (p. 87) [via PaperHive@docloop] #319

Open docloop[bot] opened 5 years ago

docloop[bot] commented 5 years ago

Annotation imported from PaperHive.

Regarding this part:

Conclusions I

Ash Asudeh wrote:

Broadly, I think we are in agreement that there are situations in which lexical specification is to be preferred and situations in which configurational/constructional specification is to be preferred. One difference is where we draw the line. You claim that the line is such that no argument structure alternations are constructional, whereas we leave the door open to that. You've discussed this issue at length in many, many publications, whereas we have essentially just dealt with in two twenty page sketches (AG and AGT, both LFG proceedings articles) and one JLM article (which really was about something slightly different). It may well be true that you are right about the BENEFACTIVE in which case we would make the minimal move of moving @BENEFACTIVE out of the c-structural component and into the lexical component with *no other changes*. But then this highlights another difference between our approaches: Lexical rules are an entirely different and additional mechanism. So you capture argument structure alternations using a distinct mechanism. In contrast, for us there is a single mechanism (templates) that can be associated with different parts of the grammar.

Link to original comment. About docloop.

docloop[bot] commented 5 years ago

Annotation imported from PaperHive.

Stefan Müller wrote:

Well, yes. But the glue semantics is resource sensitive and I think this is a very powerful additional thing you assume. The resources are the valence lists of HPSG. You are eating up resources in your glue statements and we are having fun with manipulating valence frames. I think this is comparable.

Link to original comment. About docloop.